If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

How would you go about proving loss by way of conflict anyway? Imagine i'm a member in a board of a committee to choose the hottest fashion model out of a pool of contestants; the winner is awarded a substantial sum.

Simple. The aggrieved parties, namely those who felt that they were passed over from winning as a result of the current business/personal relationship between yourself and model X could argue that they lost out on winning the prize because of your voting.

A review is not a competition though. You might disagree with a writers assessment, but your not obligated to accept it as a final judgement, or treat it as such.

Originally Posted by hamster

Lines are drawn. You don't deem everyone possibly connected as in concert (a non-wholly owned subsidiary of a non-wholly owned subsidiary of an associate of an associate...) But at least you know you've crossed the line when it sounds abhorrent.

'When it sounds abhorrent'? Really that's the best response you have? 'when it sounds abhorrent'. If the subject was perhaps slavery or animal trafficking, or the continued oppression of a people I think those fall under the banner of 'abhorrent', but in truth I haven't yet seen anything demonstrable that quite hit that mark with regard to the business of games journalism. For all the shirt tearing and finger pointing and accusations of wide scale industry corruption as per the OPs original post: -

Its all money talks. Its all corrupt

there's seemingly very little in the way of some hard examples of this actually being the case.

Originally Posted by Sparkasaurusmex

I think the word "corrupt" is the problem in this argument. It isn't actual corruption, it's a culture of complicity between review outlets and publishers.

Complicity? What criminal activity is games journalism in cahoots with the bigger publishers over exactly?

Last edited by Kadayi; 17-11-2012 at 09:42 AM.

Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....The Conclave beckons ... PM for details

Simple. The aggrieved parties, namely those who felt that they were passed over from winning as a result of the current business/personal relationship between yourself and model X could argue that they lost out on winning the prize because of your voting.

That's impossible to prove simply because I could have chosen Model X anyway. This is why the focus is always on the relationship rather than the consequence.

A review is not a competition though. You might disagree with a writers assessment, but your not obligated to accept it as a final judgement, or treat it as such.

Then you are arguing against the larger notion of people relying on reviews and whether reviewers owe their readers the duty to act in good faith. To distill it even further, the fundamental question is: should journalists review a product for the benefit of the readers by putting themselves in the shoes of their readers when reviewing the product - or not? Are readers in some limited sense, stakeholders of reviewers?

The answer has to be in the affirmative. Ad money is generated when readers access content (in other cases, readers pay a subscription fee, so the relationship is even more direct). And just as implicit conditions of sale are legally implied into any transaction between buyer and seller (such as goods being free from defect) it follows that reviewers owe their readers the same duty.

'When it sounds abhorrent'? Really that's the best response you have? 'when it sounds abhorrent'. If the subject was perhaps slavery or animal trafficking, or the continued oppression of a people I think those fall under the banner of 'abhorrent', but in truth I haven't yet seen anything demonstrable that quite hit that mark with regard to the business of games journalism. For all the shirt tearing and finger pointing and accusations of wide scale industry corruption as per the OPs original post.

I am describing the relationship as being abhorrent, not the act itself which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove. I think it's pretty backwards to argue that since nobody has drawn the line so let's not draw a line at all! I see games as particularly susceptible to ugly stuff because critical consensus does have an impact on sales (or at least game devs/publishers think they do, what-with bonuses dependent on metacritic averages).

I am describing the relationship as being abhorrent, not the act itself which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove. I think it's pretty backwards to argue that since nobody has drawn the line so let's not draw a line at all!

Thing is, the argument in this case appears to be, now we've dug down a bit, that he probably has friends at Activision, and he wanted to help them out by giving them a good review.

That's not beyond the realms of possibility, though it seems somewhat unlikely. You'd have to be a very selfless person to put your own reputation and job on the line to help with your friends' jobs. I wouldn't do that, I doubt many here would either.

But yeah, okay, let's say that's possible, it's hardly the "completely obvious slam-dunk of abhorrency conflict of interest" it's being presented as. It's on the very low end of the scale. But he worked there for a long time, so it sounds far worse than it is. When you actually think about it, there's not actually much benefit he would get out of tailoring his review.

Thing is, the argument in this case appears to be, now we've dug down a bit, that he probably has friends at Activision, and he wanted to help them out by giving them a good review.

That's not beyond the realms of possibility, though it seems somewhat unlikely. You'd have to be a very selfless person to put your own reputation and job on the line to help with your friends' jobs. I wouldn't do that, I doubt many here would either.

But yeah, okay, let's say that's possible, it's hardly the "completely obvious slam-dunk of abhorrency conflict of interest" it's being presented as. It's on the very low end of the scale. But he worked there for a long time, so it sounds far worse than it is. When you actually think about it, there's not actually much benefit he would get out of tailoring his review.

But people don't want to think about it.

Ok, I haven't really read about the accusations because most of them attempt to draw a conclusion which i consider a lost cause from the outset. I would say though that the reason why the relationship stings is not just because of a conflict of materialistic interest, but because there also doubts of impartiality. Is someone who works for a company for a decade truly impartial? Possibly not if he hated working there, but also possibly yes if the leave was amicable. Then there's the influence someone at the company could exert on an ex-employee. It's far easier to influence somebody you know. It's also far easier to establish an improper relationship with the same. The sort of give-and-take in these sort of relationships isn't necessarily even about money. The example I gave earlier about the governance in tennis is a "concrete" example (although of course, it is once again impossible to prove definitively what-could-have-been but for).

That's impossible to prove simply because I could have chosen Model X anyway. This is why the focus is always on the relationship rather than the consequence.

The outcome is the proof, tied to the relationship. It's not enough to say there's a relationship, that's enough (because going down that route means you have to throw pretty much everyone in the gaming press under the bus). You have to assess the outcome as well. The scores no greater or lesser than any other critics has given it, and as he no longer works for them and isn't being paid by them their doesn't seem to be anything amiss. If he'd scored the game a 10 and everyone else gave it a 6 I'd say there was cause for concern, but that's not how it played out.

Then you are arguing against the larger notion of people relying on reviews and whether reviewers owe their readers the duty to act in good faith. To distill it even further, the fundamental question is: should journalists review a product for the benefit of the readers by putting themselves in the shoes of their readers when reviewing the product - or not? Are readers in some limited sense, stakeholders of reviewers?

How many people really read reviews? I suspect the vast majority of people who buy the next GTA V won't care a jot what any journalists think about it at the end of the day, because they'll have been sold on the game by the trailer alone. Most people don't read film reviews either, Vs seeing what's on and electing to go. This idea that the gaming press are the high priests and their sanctity is of the utmost concern for gamer's everywhere is a joke of an idea. Also who ever reads only one review?

Originally Posted by hamster

Then there's the influence someone at the company could exert on an ex-employee. It's far easier to influence somebody you know. It's also far easier to establish an improper relationship with the same. The sort of give-and-take in these sort of relationships isn't necessarily even about money.

So you're saying that Activision goons came around to his house and threatened to shoot his wife in the knees? That he was intimidated into giving them a 9/10? Why not a 10/10? Please, what next kidnapping?

Last edited by Kadayi; 17-11-2012 at 08:32 PM.

Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....The Conclave beckons ... PM for details

If he'd scored the game a 10 and everyone else gave it a 6 I'd say there was cause for concern, but that's not how it played out.

Weirdly enough, I think the strongest argument against appointing people who have been close to past games is actually at the other end entirely, but none of the "evil corruption is rife" crowd want to make it as it ascribes innocent motives to the writer, and that stops them having a witch-hunt.

Because by and large, humans are selfish creatures. A guy is sure as hell not going to risk his own professional credibility to give a good score to a game some of his friends were involved with, especially when that's one score of hundreds. On the other hand, I think it's much more likely, especially with everything going on recently, than the guy thought the game was worth a 10, but dropped it to a 9 so it didn't look like he was being biased. That's an understandable selfish motive there.

Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....The Conclave beckons ... PM for details

Conflict of interests is based on interests, not on actions. A conflict of interests occurs when the individual or group in question has multiple interests influencing a decision or set of decisions and at least one of the influences deriving from those interests is caused by different and non-causally related factors than at least one other influence derived from a different interest.

To illustrate, as per the model example. Joe is on a panel to select the most attractive model. He is expected to share the interests of the panel when making his vote, and the interest of the panel for that vote is to select the most attractive model. Joe is also an agent for one of the models, named Jane. As Jane's agent, he is expected to share the interests of Jane as they relate to her career when making decisions which can impact it. Particularly, Jane's interest is to be selected by the panel. Therefore, Joe has a conflict of interests. It may be true that Jane is the most attractive model, in which case the conflict of interests did not cause any harm. However, the conflict still existed because the causes of the influences which his different interests exerted on him were not causally related. Had those interests come into conflict, he would have had to choose one interest over the other, which would mean either betraying the panel or betraying Jane. If he truly was selecting the most attractive model, and not simply Jane, then Jane should fire him because he was not acting in her best interests as her agent. If he was selecting Jane to further her career and not the most attractive model, then the panel should fire him because he was not acting in their best interests. Even if Jane was the most attractive model (to Joe), he still must have made the decision for only one of those two reasons, because the reasons are in conflict. Either he prioritized Jane's career, or he prioritized finding the most attractive model, but he knew that he could have been forced to make a decision between those two interests.

Worth noting that this does also apply to a case where he simply wanted to vote for Jane for personal gain, say because he's her brother. In this case he is being asked to either betray his own personal interests or the interests of the panel. This is a conflict of interests, although the solution is less clear (stepping down from the panel is not always an acceptable option). In these cases full disclosure ensures that at the very least everyone knows to be on the lookout for potential bias, and those closer to the situation and in a position of power can make the decision to let him stay on or not based on more detailed information (trustworthiness, closeness of relationship, etc.).

The outcome is the proof, tied to the relationship. It's not enough to say there's a relationship, that's enough (because going down that route means you have to throw pretty much everyone in the gaming press under the bus). You have to assess the outcome as well. The scores no greater or lesser than any other critics has given it, and as he no longer works for them and isn't being paid by them their doesn't seem to be anything amiss. If he'd scored the game a 10 and everyone else gave it a 6 I'd say there was cause for concern, but that's not how it played out.

How is that "proof"? Anyone can give damn near any score that they please and it is almost utterly impossible to dispute opinion. Review scores may also be fairly divergent in "ordinary circumstances." The average is made up of a variety of numbers, some large, some small, but hardly any of them is the number that is the calculated average. Perhaps one could measure spread and argue that if the score was x amount of SDs a red flag should pop up but then you would still end up arguing against opinion. You could at the same time raise the issue of a conflicted relationship of course but how would anyone know that such a relationship exists in the first place if it isn't disclosed? Wouldn't it be a ton more convenient just to disclose it in the first place? And outright ban reviews from people who are in double employ?

How many people really read reviews? I suspect the vast majority of people who buy the next GTA V won't care a jot what any journalists think about it at the end of the day, because they'll have been sold on the game by the trailer alone. Most people don't read film reviews either, Vs seeing what's on and electing to go. This idea that the gaming press are the high priests and their sanctity is of the utmost concern for gamer's everywhere is a joke of an idea.

The fact that the industry exists is proof. If there was no demand, review magazines and websites wouldn't exist. It makes an awful lot of sense to curb conflicts.

Also who ever reads only one review?

If there are no safeguards, you can bet there will be an indeterminable number of untruthful reviews.

So you're saying that Activision goons came around to his house and threatened to shoot his wife in the knees? That he was intimidated into giving them a 9/10? Why not a 10/10? Please, what next kidnapping?

I was thinking more along the lines of a give-and-take sort of thing. A lot easier to strike a deal with someone who worked for you before.

Worth noting that this does also apply to a case where he simply wanted to vote for Jane for personal gain, say because he's her brother. In this case he is being asked to either betray his own personal interests or the interests of the panel. This is a conflict of interests, although the solution is less clear (stepping down from the panel is not always an acceptable option). In these cases full disclosure ensures that at the very least everyone knows to be on the lookout for potential bias, and those closer to the situation and in a position of power can make the decision to let him stay on or not based on more detailed information (trustworthiness, closeness of relationship, etc.).

The problem is there's no current relationship. The example of the model/judge as given has zero bearing because the reviewer doesn't work for activision any more. You can perhaps argue there's the potential for bias (which can go either way let's be honest here) but not for conflict of interest which is always a case of there always being favoritism.

Originally Posted by hamster

How is that "proof"? Anyone can give damn near any score that they please and it is almost utterly impossible to dispute opinion. Review scores may also be fairly divergent in "ordinary circumstances." The average is made up of a variety of numbers, some large, some small, but hardly any of them is the number that is the calculated average.

Or do you think perhaps it was in fact a case of a site editor thinking it would look cool to the kids to run down a perfectly serviceable game? Here's Jim's opening statement: -

Kane & Lynch: Dead Men was one of the most notorious games of this generation. Famously bad, the game made headlines after a GameSpot reviewer gave it a low score and ended up fired because, allegedly, it had upset Eidos and the site's marketing department.

After a backlash from critics and a name forever tarnished with corrupt business practices and dreadful quality, it's surprising that Kane & Lynch ever managed to get a sequel, but here we are. Two of gaming's sleaziest, most grotesque, sociopathic old bastards are back, and this time IO Interactive has a chance to get its honor back.

That perhaps he deliberately gave it that low a score (Score: 1.0 -- Epic Fail (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)) as some pathetic attempt at payback at a company whom he (as it tuned out mistakenly) felt had done a fellow "games journalist" wrong? (Originally the review severely impacted on the metacritic average, but has since been removed). The reality to events is that Jeff was fired by a new management team who didn't really understand a revised reviews system Jeff had put in place and didn't get that publishers threatening to pull advertising was SOP: -

In fact even before that video Jeff Gerstmann himself reviewed K&L2:DD on giantbomb and gave it a 6/10: -

(If anyone was going to badmouth a game by a company that was supposed to have cost him his job, you'd think it would perhaps be the man himself no?)

Do you think that Jim Sterling's score was appropriate? Or justified? That it was written with a view to truly informing the reader as to the actual playable value of the game and that he was being fair both to his readership & to the developers with either the tone of that review or the score?

The fact that the industry exists is proof. If there was no demand, review magazines and websites wouldn't exist. It makes an awful lot of sense to curb conflicts.

But again you have to demonstrate that there is in fact a conflict. As stated earlier on, you can argue bias, but you can't argue for conflict of interest in a case like this. The problem is bias can exist on many levels, as demonstrated by Jim Sterling's frankly embarrassing review for K&L2.

If there are no safeguards, you can bet there will be an indeterminable number of untruthful reviews.

Please less of the scaremongering and how about instead answering the question? I mean Christ if there are people out there who put their complete faith in the opinion of one reviewer alone I feel sorry for those who ever read Tom Chicks demolition of the original Deus Ex: -

I was thinking more along the lines of a give-and-take sort of thing. A lot easier to strike a deal with someone who worked for you before.

'a give-and-take sort of thing' ? 'Strike a deal?'

The guy works for eurogamer, one of the bigger gaming news/review sites going. Do you think eurogamer need to somehow 'butter up' activision to get hold of review copies? Or are you trying to pull a Diesel and imply that 'Its all money talks. Its all corrupt'.

Because I'm pretty sure Jim R made a post umpteen pages back calling horseshit on this whole bribes thing. Still I guess he's institutionally corrupt yes?

Last edited by Kadayi; 18-11-2012 at 11:20 AM.

Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....The Conclave beckons ... PM for details

That perhaps he deliberately gave it that low a score (Score: 1.0 -- Epic Fail (1s are the lowest of the low. There is no potential, no skill, no depth and no talent. These games have nothing to offer the world, and will die lonely and forgotten.)) as some pathetic attempt at payback at a company whom he (as it tuned out mistakenly) felt had done a fellow "games journalist" wrong? (Originally the review severely impacted on the metacritic average, but has since been removed).

(If anyone was going to badmouth a game by a company that was supposed to have cost him his job, you'd think it would perhaps be the man himself no?)

Do you think that Jim Sterling's score was appropriate? Or justified? That it was written with a view to truly informing the reader as to the actual playable value of the game and that he was being fair both to his readership & to the developers with either the tone of that review or the score?

But again you have to demonstrate that there is in fact a conflict. As stated earlier on, you can argue bias, but you can't argue for conflict of interest in a case like this. The problem is bias can exist on many levels, as demonstrated by Jim Sterling's frankly embarrassing review for K&L2.

You keep telling the Jim Sterling review is unfair but you just point at the low score, and not the arguments he make! And what about the overly positive scores that don't aknowledge potential issues a game may have? Why does a journo needs to be in balance with the average score,a average score made by a bunch of incompetents in the first place? I don't doubt you that the Jim review is poor(because i read it), but if you just point at the score and not the argument in wich he concludes the game deserves a 1.0, then you don't have much to say... You could just quote this little text and everyone would agree with you:

the cover system barely works. Most of the time, enemies can shoot you to ribbons through the cover, and many of them will just ignore the system altogether, run up to your spot, and blast you pieces.

Also, why do you thimk Jim did this with the sole intent of hurting Eidos? inside knowledge? You really contradict yourself this time pal...

Also, he says in one article at gamefront that Eidos requested Destructoid to pull the ads after the K&L2 review. But you can make anything out of it...

You keep telling the Jim Sterling review is unfair but you just point at the low score, and not the arguments he make! And what about the overly positive scores that don't aknowledge potential issues a game may have? Why does a journo needs to be in balance with the average score,a average score made by a bunch of incompetents in the first place? I don't doubt you that the Jim review is poor(because i read it), but if you just point at the score and not the argument in wich he concludes the game deserves a 1.0, then you don't have much to say... You could just quote this little text and everyone would agree with you

The point was to demonstrate a clear case of bias. If you're saying Jim Sterling's review is accurate, should we therefore deduce that everyone else who reviewed and gave it more than a 1/10 was (to use you favourite and rather tired phrase) 'a shill' : -

I guess all the users who rated it above one are either 'fake accounts' or 'unrepentant Eidos fanbois' no? Listen to this shill right here: -

The following are my scores on graphics, controls, gameplay, story, and fun factor for Dog Days. First, I will address the positives. [GRAPHICS: 9/10]. Compared to the first game, this one definitely improves on graphics. Everything looks grimier and more realistic. [CONTROLS: 8.5/10] A little tighter and easier to handle this time around. Now onto the BAD: [GAME PLAY: 5/10] With Dog Days, Eidos really tried to fix a lot of the issues that were noted in the first one. However, at the same time, they took out a lot of elements that made the first game so unique and fun. The game plays with mechanics similar to Gears Of War; you press X to take cover, and while pointing your L stick left or right and pressing X, you can make your character dash around to the opposite wall or low cover. You also have the choice of blind firing without aiming. The list of similarity goes on. All of this makes maneuvering through the stages a lot smoother compared to Dead Men's Freedom Fighter-like mechanics. But, what's been removed is the ability to conduct silent take downs. Instead, now you can hold people like human shields. But if you want to execute anyone, it's going to be a loud gunshot through their skull, and everyone is going to hear it. But that doesn't really make a difference in this game, because you can't ever take on any situation with stealth, because once you walk past an invisible line, all the enemies in that section just automatically know where you are. Enemy snipers are also much less intimidating, because they removed the enemy sniper scope indicator (which use to pop up and show you the enemy sniper's point of view). Enemy snipers use to kill the player with one shot, but in this game snipers have no intimidation factor. Kane can yell "Sniper!" all day long but I couldn't give two sh*ts, because they aren't any deadlier than the usual grunt. Another change is that there is no longer the need to watch out for your partner and heal him, causing the urgency level of this game to really suffer. In Dead Men, players had to ensure the safety of their teammates, because if they went down, then you would have to approach them and inject them with adrenaline to revive them. And your teammates would do the same for you if you went down. However, the catch was, that if anybody got injected more than a few times within a few minutes, than that character would overdose and die, so health regenerations weren't unlimited. In Dog Days, there is no need to heal anybody. If you go down the first few times, you have the option of crawling around and firing at opponents, and then pressing X to stand back up and continue the fight. And if you were playing the story mode by yourself with Kane as the AI, you wouldn't need to worry about him at all because this man is more bullet proof than Terminator. The last difference I want to address is that unlike the first game, in Dog Days, you can no longer give orders to your teammates. Now they just run around and do whatever they see fit. [STORYLINE: 1/10]: This part is where the game suffers the most. The "story mode" is almost absent of any story what so ever. Basically Kayne goes to China to meet Lynch. Lynch is involved in a deal gone bad. Bad guys hunt down Lynch's girlfriend. Lynch and Kane try to save the girl. Girl got killed. Kane and Lynch got mad, and decided to kill everything in their path. And for the next 5 hours it is the same damn gunfight, over and over and over again, just in different locations. The storyline was so lacking, that most times I didn't even know how or why I got from point A to point B. All I knew was I been shooting for the last 5 hours, and I couldn't wait to reach the ending so I can stop shooting and end this terrible story just to say that I beat the game. [FUN FACTOR]: The only fun you're gonna get out of this game is the interesting multiplayer modes it offers. That's about it. But these days, it would be a surprise to find anyone online still playing this awful game.

He still gave it 4/10. But what's this? His user name is 'dangerclose' ..most definitely a shill that one given...oh no that's EA ...well whatever ...still a 'shill' because 'it's all money, it's all corrupt'.

Also, why do you thimk Jim did this with the sole intent of hurting Eidos? inside knowledge? You really contradict yourself this time pal...

I suspect he probably did it for the page hits, because what Sterling lacks in actual quality he makes up for with showmanship to bottomfeeders. Giving the game that low a score definitely generated hits for Destructoid as everyone went to examine the car crash and marvel at it.

Last edited by Kadayi; 18-11-2012 at 06:37 PM.

Why yes you're right I'm deliciously evil
Tradition is the tyranny of dead men
Steam:Kadayi Origin: Kadayi
Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes....The Conclave beckons ... PM for details

The point was to demonstrate a clear case of bias. If you're saying Jim Sterling's review is accurate, should we therefore deduce that everyone else who reviewed and gave it more than a 1/10 was (to use you favourite and rather tired phrase) 'a shill' : -

I suspect he probably did it for the page hits, because what Sterling lacks in actual quality he makes up for with showmanship to bottomfeeders. Giving the game that low a score definitely generated hits for Destructoid as everyone went to examine the car crash and marvel at it.

I'm not seeing a clear case of bias in this one. A clear case of poorly written, badly accurate and stupid review sure, but if you want to stand your point that the Eurogamer Blops2 review and Lauren reviews is not a clear case of bias either, then why point out to Jim? Jim Sterling score of K&L2 is as invalid as his review of MW3 wich gained 9.5( in the latter, he complains about the small campaign, in the MW3 review, he fucking praises the small time of the campaign), so not sure why you have grudges with him only against his low score...

Also, most gaming sites provides nerd bait articles and reviews just like this one, but i guess metacritic don't have a problem with that... And why metacritic removed Jim's review?Why metacritic didn't remove the over positives reviews? This seletive collecting of reviews is more bad to the business imo...